Speech by President of the Republic Tarja Halonen at the Nordic Symposium on Global Democracy in Turku on 19 August 2005

(check against delivery)

I am glad to be able to speak at this Nordic Symposium on Global Democracy and wish to thank the organizers for addressing such a timely subject.

Democracy, human rights and the rule of law are considered the cornerstones of modern society. But how can they be implemented in a global world? Let us return to basic matters.

* * *

The applications of democracy vary greatly, but the basic idea remains the same: power belongs to the people and the people can also decide how this power should be used. They can delegate power, but the recipients remain answerable to the original owner, the people. Democracy is majority power but this is not without limits. The human rights of the minority must also be protected.

Human rights are indeed rights and it is the task of the state to implement and protect them. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted in 1948, covers political, economic, social and cultural rights. We know all too well that human rights are being violated around the world and sanctions have been arranged less effectively on the international level than for trade rights. And yet drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in today's international political climate might be quite difficult.

With globalization the rule of law has gained new favour. It is important not only for citizens but also for businesses that rules are respected by society - even far away. The core of the rule of law is that democratically approved norms are implemented fairly and that individuals can count on receiving fair treatment when they deal with public authorities.

In the Nordic countries the significance of civil society is very great. Whether we think of the social partners, social services and health or nature conservation, civil society is actively involved in setting goals and working to achieve them. Non-governmental organizations may themselves provide services, but like the media they are watchdogs that draw attention to social problems.

* * *

The World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization in its own report, "A Fair Globalization: Creating Opportunities for All", also dealt with issues related to global democracy. Both opponents and proponents of globalization agreed that a large part of power appears to be escaping from the hands of traditional decision-makers. It was also fairly easy to agree that people's position in globalization looked different depending on where they lived, although there are winners and losers in all societies.

People do not generally want the nation state to disappear, but believe that building democracy begins at home, in the nation-state, even in the era of globalization. This is even more important now, when all nations are increasingly depending on one another. A strong democratic state protects its own citizens and is probably more likely to create better and fairer international rules, operating principles and institutions.

Nation states are still the basic units of international activities, if we consider traditional international agreements. Their activities are greatly influenced by the form that international cooperation takes. Individuals' political influence can generally reach only as high as the nation state. The democracy of the nation state is the cornerstone of global democracy.

How can we in practice take care that democracy is also implemented in the management of international affairs? A key way is to ensure that representatives of nation states at international conferences and negotiations have a democratically approved mandate. Activities between nation states are usually between governments, which in turn are or at least should be under parliamentary supervision.

The World Commission's work made it clear that parliaments' possibilities to authorize and supervise governments' activities in international negotiations and conferences is often quite limited. Many times it was not even clear who represents a particular country in an international organization or negotiations.

In Finland Parliament's position in authorizing and supervising the Government's activities has been underlined since we joined the European Union. Before a meeting of the European Council or the Council of Ministers, the Government informs Parliament of the matters that will be discussed and proposes Finland's positions on these matters. After hearing the minister Parliament gives its final authorization and instructions to the minister attending the meeting. Afterwards ministers report to Parliament on Council meetings. In practice the Grand Committee exercises Parliament's power in this respect.

Finland based its system on Denmark's and nowadays many of the new member states have a similar system.

The system I have described works well and we are pleased with it for the most part. The practice of hearing views before and after meetings is generally applied for other international meetings and negotiations as well. Under our Constitution the President directs foreign and security policy in Finland. There has been considerable discussion regarding how cooperation between Parliament and the President, both of which are directly elected by the people, has been arranged.

In many countries national assemblies play a role in approving international agreements, in addition to parliamentary supervision. In this case their position is formally even stronger, but with a majority government there is seldom much chance that an agreement will be voted down in Parliament. This has apparently been taken into consideration in many countries with qualified majority rules or referendum procedures.

The European Union's development and its approval in different member states points to this. Approving the constitutional treaty has been much easier in countries where it has been left up to parliament than in countries where referendums have been held. All in all combining national and international decision-making so as to achieve democracy and effectiveness is quite demanding.

What kind of mandate should a government have in international negotiations? At one extreme is a mandate that requires the government to act in a specific way, without room for negotiation. Such a strict mandate can be quite democratic nationally, but it does not promote the finding of a generally acceptable solution in international negotiations. At the other extreme is a mandate that in practice gives the government a free hand. In this case parliament only exercises power after the fact, approving or rejecting the result negotiated by the government.

How strict a mandate should be naturally depends on the case. I would like to encourage the participants in this symposium to compare the rules of different international organizations, however: What advantages and disadvantages do they seem to have? In Europe, for example, the Nordic Council and the Council of Europe do not contain actual supranational elements. Instead the member states approve joint resolutions or implementing legislation at the national level. Both these organizations also have a parliamentary assembly consisting of representatives of national parliaments.

The European Union, on the other hand, has a Council and a Commission with supranational power as well as the European Parliament. The EU has succeeded fairly well in creating the coordination of economic power but also a growing opposition to the development of supranational power. The people complain that they cannot keep track of power lost to Brussels. Is this true?

Openness is a key principle of public activity. Decisions and positions and the reasons for them should be public. The international negotiation situation places its own limitations on this, however. Let us consider negotiations on the EU's financial framework. If Parliament's mandate, negotiating room and their reasons had been public, negotiating room would have been used up at the start.

Following the principles of national democracy in managing international affairs is indispensable, but practice may vary considerably. What works for a large and rich country may be bad for one that is small and poor.

An extreme example of authorizing a national government in international affairs is offered by legislation in the United States, which specifies how the nation's representatives should act in international financial institutions. The United States' representatives must always oppose loans to certain countries. This authorization is completely public and has been made part of national legislation in a democratic process, but whether it helps global democracy is harder to say.

* * *

I have emphasized the importance of national measures as the basis of global democracy. It is clear, however, that global democracy also requires the idea of global good and effective measures to achieve it, including global measures.

A key element of global democracy and managing globalization is international agreements, international organizations and other joint forums. The main actors in these are nation states. Of course non-governmental organizations and other organizations also play their own role in these.

Democratic principles - representativeness, responsibilities, obligations - have been taken into account in international agreements and organizations in many ways. Agreements bind all the countries that have approved them, so they ultimately involve each country's independent decision to limit national sovereignty by participating in an agreement.

The democracy of international agreements also naturally depends on how agreements are negotiated. Participating in negotiations often requires large economic and human resources. And in this respect the world is not an equal place. Consequently many international agreements formally meet the requirements of democracy - everyone has had an opportunity to participate in negotiations - but not everyone has had the same chance to influence the content of an agreement. Perfection in this regard cannot be achieved, but improvement can be made.

On the other hand we can also consider the relation between democracy, effectiveness and efficiency in global activities. Is it better to achieve a consensus in a small group and then offer this to others for approval or perhaps changes or is it better for everyone to participate in negotiations the whole time, with the risk that achieving a consensus may be quite difficult?

Sometimes international agreements treat different countries in different ways. The Non-Proliferation Treaty, for example, gives five countries the right to possess nuclear weapons and denies this right to other countries. From Finland's viewpoint the treaty is not perfect or equal, but we have regarded treaties as a key way to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and therefore have made a commitment to the treaty and hope that others will do the same. In many countries the special right given to the nuclear powers is considered so unfair that the Non-Proliferation Treaty is regarded as a blot on the international community, even though the spread of nuclear weapons is itself opposed.

The Finnish saying that "Best is the enemy of good" reflects a problem. The nation state is responsible for its own country, but it should also have sensitivity and an eye to the global good and the significance of international cooperation. Otherwise the Kyoto Protocol and the Declaration of Children's Rights will remain unapproved.

In international organizations the fairness and democracy of decision-making have been promoted in quite different ways. In the OSCE decisions require a consensus of all nations. In the UN General Assembly every country has one vote and many decisions are made by a simple majority. International financial institutions use a voting system based on contributions.

Every system has its own reasons and justification. Criticism has focused perhaps most on international financial institutions' decision-making based on contributions. I think it is clear, however, that when it is a matter of direct economic support or the arranging of financing, those who pay want to retain decision-making power, whether this is in the EU or the World Bank. No one wants simply to be sent a bill. Equally and justifiably criticism has been levelled at the ineffectiveness of global organizations' activities or even the harm they have done to recipients' economies, not to mention the lack of coordination between negotiators and the confusion this has caused.

A special case is organizations in which decision-making power has been given in some matters to a smaller group of countries. The best-known example is the UN Security Council, to which the UN Charter gives primary responsibility for international peace and security. The Security Council has five permanent members, who have a veto over all its decisions. The Security Council was a great step forward at the time. Nowadays the system no longer corresponds to people's picture of democracy. Nevertheless, the Security Council's position has been laid down in the Charter and achieving broader representation appears quite difficult.

Achieving a universal human rights system has been very laborious. The UN General Assembly beginning in September will again have developing the system on its agenda. It is interesting to note that a comprehensive sanction system in this area is not likely for a long time. Establishing the International Criminal Court was itself an enormous task, and Russia and the United States are still not members.

Another interesting example that may not have received so much attention is the World Trade Organization's dispute settlement body. Possible treaty violations have been submitted to a dispute settlement body set up separately each time. One could say that it has been jointly agreed that independent "judges" will resolve disputes. This is a very significant transfer of national sovereignty. For some people the legally binding WTO agreement and the dispute settlement body for which it provides is a model of how to manage globalization and democracy. For others it is an example of a poor and undemocratic international system.

* * *

In recent years a lot has been said and written about national parliaments' and civil society's position in international organizations' activities. As I noted earlier, national parliaments' position is emphasized in national decision-making and authorizing the government to act. Parliaments' position has also grown stronger in international organizations, however. In general this position involves discussion, without actual decision-making authority.

Civil society's input has increased in both national and international activities in recent years. This has helped strengthen the democracy of international activities. Non-governmental organizations have drawn attention to issues and viewpoints that might otherwise have been neglected. With increasing international cooperation, civil society's influence has grown significantly. It can justifiably be said that some non-governmental organizations have more influence on international decision-making than many independent states.

In Finland we have considered it important for non-governmental organizations' views to be seen and heard in official connections as well. In addition to normal parliamentary hearings, representatives of non-governmental organizations have taken part in official meeting and negotiating delegations. In many other countries this would be regarded as very strange, by both the state and non-governmental organizations. In Finland we have regarded this as an important part of democracy, however.

Global democracy is an interesting and multiform subject. I have tried to deal with some of the key aspects of global democracy from the viewpoint of a practical actor. A lot remains to be said, however, for example about the detailed agreement models built into global production. Regional cooperation, which I touched on with regard to Europe, may also be a model that safely lowers nation states' borders in the era of globalization.

Finland has actively promoted discussion concerning global democracy. One proof of this is the Helsinki Process, which will culminate a few weeks from now in the Helsinki Conference. The intention is to expand the participation basis from traditional intergovernmental activity and to influence the content of decision-making - in other words to create a globalization that pays better attention to people's and nature's welfare.

I wish this symposium success. I have no doubt brought more questions than answers. But perhaps they will be of benefit in proceeding on the hard road of global democracy.

I also wish to thank and express my respect for Professor Göran von Bonsdorff. Through your highly significant contribution you have promoted social discussion and the building of a fairer world both here in Finland and internationally.